St Maximos the Confessor : The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692)

St. Irenaeus"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 33 [A.D. 189]).Tertullian"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).The Little Labyrinth"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 53).Cyprian of Carthage"The Lord says to Peter: �I say to you,� he says, �that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251])."Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him�when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253])."With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).Eusebius of Caesarea"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter�s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 39�10 [A.D. 312]).Pope Julius I"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20�35).Council of Sardica"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).Optatus"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head�that is why he is also called Cephas [�Rock�]�of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).Epiphanius of Salamis"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).Pope Damasus I"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: �You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven� [Matt. 16:18�19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

St. Jerome"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter�s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383])."Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says �With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,� the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396])."Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396])...."I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2)."The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, �He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!� . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).Ambrose of Milan"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: �I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven�[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 133 [A.D. 388]).St. Augustine"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402])."If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 532 [A.D. 412]).Council of Ephesus"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: �There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod�" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).Pope Leo I"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters 110 [A.D. 445])."Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, �You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.� Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).Peter Chrysologus"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).Council of Chalcedon"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: �This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Montanism was an apocalyptic sect that denied the divinely-established nature of the Church. Montanus, who began prophesying in 172, came from central Turkey (which became the heresy’s center of operations). Opposition to Montanism was spearheaded by Pope Eleutherus (175-89), and it was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217).

Modalism (also known as Sabellianism) denied the full Personhood of all three Persons of the Trinity, and believed that God operated through mere “modes” or the transferral of power. Theodotus (2nd cent.) came from Byzantium to Rome, only to be excommunicated by Pope Victor (c.189-98). His disciple, also named Theodotus (early 3rd century) was condemned by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217). Artemon (3rd century) was teaching in Rome, c.235, but was excommunicated. Sabellius (fl.. 215) was excommunicated by Pope Callistus I.

Novatianism was a rigorist schism, stating that persons who fell away under persecution or who were guilty of serious sin could not be absolved. Its theology was otherwise orthodox. Novatian (d.258), a Roman presbyter, started the schism in 250. In 251 it was condemned by a Roman Synod and Pope Cornelius, and Novatian became an “antipope.” His views were approved at Antioch.

Donatism held that sacraments administered by unworthy priests were invalid, and practiced re-baptism. The sect flourished in Africa, around Carthage. It began in 311 and was condemned by Pope Miltiades (311-14), who also came from Africa, in 313.

Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355). Learn more about St. Athanasius’ appeal to Rome by clicking here.

Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person — a Godman. Nestorius (d. c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The cowriters of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

The Iconoclastic Controversy, a great upheaval of the 8th and 9th centuries, was spurred on notably by Monophysitism and influenced by Islam. This heresy held that images in worship were idolatrous and evil. It was initiated by Eastern Emperors Leo II (717-41), who deposed Germanus (c.634-c.733), Patriarch of Constantinople (715-30) — who appealed to Pope Gregory III. Gregory held two Synods at Rome condemning Leo’s supporters in 731. In 784 Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, initiated negotiations with Pope Adrian I. The Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 condemned the Iconoclasts. The Iconoclast Controversy was a major contributor towards the enduring schism between East and West.

Did you copy and paste this from somewhere? If so, could you please credit your source by providing a link to the Web page from which you copied this? Send it to Schultz or me via private message if you can't append it to your post. Thank you.

However, I can imagine that by making use of the concept of development of doctrine, there might be a way of rewording a couple of RC teachings, so that they would be acceptable to the E. Orthodox Church and then the Pope could become E. Orthodox and yet remain RC at the same time.

What do you mean "the Pope could become E. Orthodox"? Do you mean leave the Roman communion and join the Byzantine communion?

First of all, in the scenario given, a Melkite bishop is already a member of the Eastern Catholic (Byzantine) Catholic Church. In the case of a reunion, the EO and RC would be one, so that the Pope would be a member of both Churches which would be united. I think it is possible under some sort of reworking of a Zoghby type agreement together with an agreement to return to the situation as it was before 1054. But to be realistic, from the honest remarks made by many of the wonderful and devoted Orthodox Christians on this board, and seeing that the Catholics don't want to budge either, I would have to say that I am sorry about it, but realistically, any reunion between RC and EO appears to be very unlikely at this point in time.

If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, then of course, the two Churches will stay separate. There are a whole lot of objections that could be raised on both sides. I can see where there are good reasons why honorable people would raise these objections. I don't say that this is realistic at this point in time, but still I would like to see some sort of harmonious reconciliation, which would come naturally, easily, willingly, and by a mutual desire where both sides would see the advantage of a reunion.

See also the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus" which teaches exactly that.

With all of that being said, Father Ambrose, we ALL know that Jesus Christ IS head of the Church, IS the Body of Christ, IS the one through whom all is possible, and without whom nothing IS.

And so your assertions to the contrary are indeed...silly and needlessly contentious.

In Christ,

Mary

I cannot believe you are unfamiliar with Pastor Aeternus -The Eternal Pastor- and so it is disrespectful to the Pope to label his teaching as "silly" and "contentious."

The Pope is writing on the topic of his being head of the Church. And I know that modern Catholics prefer to downplay the Pope's claims but he has not renounced them and they remain magisterial teaching. They are de fide for all Catholics.

Here, from among many, is an example of his claims

Chapter 3: On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people. To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church. All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons."

---

....Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."[58]

If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals. He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

I can see what you are saying. These serious differences would have to be worked out to the satisfaction and agreement from both sides, in a spirit of good faith, good will and desire for reconciliation, but like I said, I am sorry about it, but, realistically, I don't see that happening anytime soon. If Catholic and Orthodox priests are coming to blows and fistfights over such a trivial matter as to whether a door at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre should be open or closed, then I don't see an excessive amount of charity or good will on either side.

If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals. He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.

As I already said, my opinion is that this is an area where some modification would have to be made. The Zoghby initiative suggests that the situation before 1054 would be considered as the norm for any reunion.

If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals. He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.

As I already said, my opinion is that this is an area where some modification would have to be made. The Zoghby initiative suggests that the situation before 1054 would be considered as the norm for any reunion.

Doctrinally - yes.

Ecclesiologically and administratively - no. Rome will not be able to have the same position as 1000 years ago. The last one thousand years of schism and aberrant teaching have disqualified her. The Church has lost confidence in her.

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

I can see what you are saying. These serious differences would have to be worked out to the satisfaction and agreement from both sides, in a spirit of good faith, good will and desire for reconciliation, but like I said, I am sorry about it, but, realistically, I don't see that happening anytime soon. If Catholic and Orthodox priests are coming to blows and fistfights over such a trivial matter as to whether a door at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre should be open or closed, then I don't see an excessive amount of charity or good will on either side.

The door should remain closed ,If i had a choice to hear beautiful byzantine Chants and prayers ,who in there right mind would want to hear, Latin babble,in what ever language interfering with the Holy Orthodox Service Going On ......Catholic have there church next door and the door should be Bricked and cemented shut ,they shouldn't even be allowed inside the Holy Church of the Resurrection...This is the correct name by the way for this Holy Place ,the tomb is empty.....

Ecclesiologically and administratively - no. Rome will not be able to have the same position as 1000 years ago. The last one thousand years of schism and aberrant teaching have disqualified her. The Church has lost confidence in her.

There has got to be a sincere and strong desire on both sides for reunion. There has to be forgiveness and good will on both sides. And at the same time, all of the theological and administrative disagreements have to be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. I can see where honorable and decent people may not want the reunion, and want to just keep things as they are now. OK, I can live with it, if that's the way it is going to be.

Ironically, it could well be Constantinople which is the major obstacle to reunion. Ironic because Constantinople is seen as being in the forefront of negotiations with Rome.

But there is going to be a real dog fight when Constantinople presses ahead with its territorial claims under Canon 28 of Chalcedon. It is already using this canon to lay claim to all of North America and Australia.

I'd love to be there in the day when the Patriarch instructs the Pope: "Now, Your Holiness, please hand over all the keys to the churches and church institutions in America and Australia and inform all your bishops that they are now under my authority."

A lot of Ultramontanist rewrites on history, a few things in particular stuck out:

Quote

Marcionism rejected the Old Testament and its God, said to be different from the God of love in the New Testament, and made a complete dichotomy between law and grace. Marcion (d.c.160) came from northeastern Turkey and migrated to Rome but was promptly excommunicated in 144. The heresy was checked by 200 in Rome but lasted for several centuries in the East.

Yes, so the "Catholic Encyclopedia" claims, but its quoted sources places it still in Rome an Italy in 374:

Quote

Epiphanius, however, testifies that in the East in A.D. 374 they had deceived "a vast number of men" and were found, "not only in Rome and Italy but in Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus and the Thebaid and even in Persia".

Arianism held that Jesus was created by the Father. In trinitarian Christianity, Christ and the Holy Spirit are both equal to, uncreated, and co-eternal with God the Father. Arius (c.256-336), the heresiarch, was based in Alexandria and died in Constantinople. In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism, whereas in a Council at Rome in the same year, under Pope Julius I, the trinitarian St. Athanasius was vindicated by over 50 Italian bishops. The western-dominated Council of Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius’ orthodoxy, whereas the eastern Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355). Learn more about St. Athanasius’ appeal to Rome by clicking here.

Not a single reference to Arianism continuing on in the West for centuries (until Justinian came from the East and stamped it out), after it died out in the East in 382. Of course, it is the excuse for the Spanish church sticking the filioque in the Creed centuries after that date.

Quote

Pelagianism is the heretical doctrine that man can make steps toward salvation by his own efforts, without Divine Grace. Pelagius cleared himself at a Synod at Jerusalem around 416, but was condemned at Carthage and Milevis in 416 and excommunicated by Pope Innocent I in the same year. Pope Zosimus reaffirmed this judgment in 418, as did the ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

Pelagius came from the West (far West, England). The Patriarch of Jerusalem, recognizing him as Latin, sent him and Jerome out West to fight it out. Zosimus reaffirmed his judgement is an overstatement: he had to be dragged into doing it.

Quote

Nestorianism contends that there are two persons in Christ (Divine and human) and denies that Mary is the Mother of God incarnate. Orthodox, Catholic Christianity holds to one Divine Person — a Godman. Nestorius (d. c.451) studied at a monastery at Antioch and became Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, having been condemned by Pope Celestine I in the Council at Rome in 430 (after both sides of the controversy appealed to Rome). The ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 repeated the Roman condemnation, after which Eastern bishops predominantly from Syria, Persia and Assyria withdrew from the Catholic Church.

Not a single reference to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, the real hero of Epheus.

Quote

Monophysitism was a heresy which held that Christ had one Divine Nature, as opposed to the orthodox and Catholic belief in two Natures (Divine and human). The Henoticon, a semi-Monophysite document was widely acknowledged in the East, but never at Rome. The cowriters of the Henoticon are thought to be Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Peter Mongo, Patriarch of Alexandria (477-90). Both were Monophysites who rejected the Council of Chalcedon. Monophysitism was an advanced type of Alexandrian theology. Pope Leo the Great dominated the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, which repudiated Monophysitism.

The Council of Chalcedon accepted Pope St. Leo's Tome, but refused to adopt it as the Definition of the Council, and accepted it only after inspection.

Quote

Monothelitism is the heretical belief that Christ had one will (Divine), whereas in orthodox, Catholic Christian dogma, Christ has both Divine and human wills. Sergius (d.638), Patriarch of Constantinople from 610 to 638, was the most influential exponent of Monotheletism. The Ecthesis, a Monothelite statement issued by Emperor Heraclius, was accepted by Councils at Constantinople in 638 and 639, but was finally rejected at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 680, which confirmed the decisions of Pope Agatho and the Synod at Rome in 679.

No mention of Pope Honorius, anathematized by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

What selective memories these Ultramontanists have!

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Back to the OP..... it would be nice if when the Pope becomes Orthodox he stays infallible long enough to decide on the question of toll houses.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.

Why, then, were their councils of numerous autocephalous churches deciding on matters of heresy if the Bishop of Rome was the actual authority on this matter, rather than the conciliar Church?

So if the Pope will become Orthodox he can still be regarded in a way a source of infaibillity.

That is a rather nonsensical statement. "The Pope can be regarded, in a way, as a source of infallibility", "if he will become Orthodox". Someone clearly cannot be infallible if they are not Orthodox.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith. The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome. They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

If the Roman dogmas were rephrased in a way that was acceptable to the Byzantines, then it would become clear that the core substance of them was orthodox all along, and as a consequence that the Byzantines broke from the Roman church without giving its doctrines proper analysis (essentially a form of schism). As a consequence, it would essentially be the Byzantines joining the Roman communion; there would be no one "becoming Eastern Orthodox".

If people insist to stay with the separation and raise objections to any reunion, .

People are not so much insisting on staying with the separation as they are insisting on what they believe to be truth.

1. There is a bishop in Rome who claims he is infallible when teaching faith or morals. He also claims to have universal and total authority over the whole Christian Church, including all the other bishops. This is a belief held by many million Christians.

2. The beliefs of the bishop in Rome that he is infallible and holds universal power is not held by another group of Christians, also numbering many millions.

Before the separation can be ended, this has to be decided one way or the other.

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!

The Book of the Act of the Apostles, chapter 15, which chronicles the proceedings and decisions of the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, is a primary scriptural evidence of the principle of Conciliarism as an apostolic and scriptural principle in the life of the Church.

The entire Council mitigates against Petrine Pimacy because

1. Peter's preference for circumcision of Gentile converts is not approved and his preferred practice is outlawed

2. Peter has a secondary role at the Council. James takes the headship and finally announces the conciliar decisions.

If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.

When there was any unsettling and missunderstanding in the early Church people pled to the authority of the Patriarch of Rome.. He was the one who clarified the conflicts in theology through the "cathedra" of Peter.

Why, then, were their councils of numerous autocephalous churches deciding on matters of heresy if the Bishop of Rome was the actual authority on this matter, rather than the conciliar Church?

I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.

I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church. The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example, 3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" - "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."

I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.

I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church. The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example, 3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" - "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."

Just making sure you are being genuine.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.

I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church. The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example, 3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" - "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."

Just making sure you are being genuine.

I cannot believe that you have known me so many years and do not know that I check and corroborate what I write, doubly so when I know it is going to be scrutinised by yourself and Mary.

But Fr. Ambose, I think you know that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head of the Chruch. The Pope is only the Head of the Church as the Bishop is the head of a Diocese in your religion.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

It seems to many, including some Orthodox faithful, that there is more textual evidence in Scripture and Tradition that supports the divine origins of Petrine Primacy than there is textual evidence supporting any divine genesis of Conciliarism!!

The Book of the Act of the Apostles, chapter 15, which chronicles the proceedings and decisions of the Council of the Apostles in Jerusalem, is a primary scriptural evidence of the principle of Conciliarism as an apostolic and scriptural principle in the life of the Church.

The entire Council mitigates against Petrine Pimacy because

1. Peter's preference for circumcision of Gentile converts is not approved and his preferred practice is outlawed

2. Peter has a secondary role at the Council. James takes the headship and finally announces the conciliar decisions.

If there actually are many Catholics, including some Orthodox faithful, who find more scriptural evidence for Petrine Primacy than Apostolic Conciliarism, then perhaps they would show us the instances in the Book of Acts where this Petrine Primacy is exercised.

This is the only one of its kind.

There are many other texts that support the claim of Petrine primacy, and primatial power in Scripture and in Tradition.

AND this particular text is not a good measure of the working of papal primacy.

A pope, in the spirit of the doctrine, does not go into the territory of a primate or bishop and demanded to see the books!...so to speak.

In every case the individual primate or bishop as been invited to visit with the Pope in Rome or in Avignon, in those years of internal division, and the Pope has talked to the individual concerned who is then free to go and either take counsel or not.

So Peter's failure to impose his opinion on James sets the tone and so it has been since, in principle.

Where it does not work in a fraternal way, ALL primatial power has been abused.

So again these examples do not achieve the results you might hope for...do not paint the total picture.

This idea that the pope can demand a submission of the will that not even God demands is just hokus-pokus and not real and not charitable and not true and at some level I believe the insistence is the product of the workings of evil.

I am aquainted with it. I am asking you if you can point to a quote in Pastor Aeternus which states, "The Pope is the head of the Church."

If you cannot point to such a phrase, then you should stop asserting such.

I am a litle surprised that you seem unfamiliar with this particular Apostolic Constitution and I am greatly surpised if you are actually denying that the Pope is the head of the Church. The Constitution is shot through and through with multiple statements of the Pope's place in the universal Church.

For example, 3.1:

"...we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence, which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the "holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church..."

In Latin it is "totiusque Ecclesiae caput" - "head of the whole Church."

Notice that ther Pope declares this to be de fide - "which must be believed by all faithful Christians..."

Just making sure you are being genuine.

The comparison point is not that the Catholic Church has a supreme head and Orthodoxy does not:

The comparison point is that the pope is the supreme head of the Catholic Church: And Jesus the Christ is the Supreme Head of the Orthodox Church: Substantially denying that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the Supreme Head of the Church.

That that is what I have been saying is nonsense and that is indeed a nonsensical comparison.

The real comparison is that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ who is the Supreme Author of the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is the head of the Church ruling from the right hand of the Father in heaven. One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Orthodoxy has no similar divinely authored system of ecclesial governance on earth.

But Fr. Ambose, I think you know that the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the head of the Chruch. The Pope is only the Head of the Church as the Bishop is the head of a Diocese in your religion.

Well, Orthodox have a problem with that as well. The Pope is not really a bishop in practice, because all bishops are ontologically co-equal; rather he has another higher echelon unto himself, and so he is above all bishops and has personal jurisdiction in all places, whether they are part of his patriarchate or not.

Whereas the Orthodox would be fine with the Pope having that power if it were limited to the Patriarchate of the West—as all Patriarchs have universal jurisdiction over their patriarchate—but Catholics teach (as I understand it) the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. We don't believe he ever had that power before the schism. He was used as the point of reference for Orthodox doctrine on different occasions, yes, but he never had personal jurisdiction per se over the entire Church. He was never the universal bishop.

I suppose it's a difference between a constitutional monarchy like the UK and an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarch, while he may be benevolent, still has the right to go into any village and tell people how to run things. Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth cannot really tell anyone what to do. Even the Queen's Speech, which sets the government's agenda, is written by the government and she just reads it.

That is akin to how we see the Pope's role. He is the outward face of unity, and in a certain sense is in control of it all, but only in the sense that he is the personification of the Church's conciliar consensus. But the Church does not need the Pope in an administrative sense. The Church does not need the Pope for a consensus to have force of law. Things are capable of running without him.

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity. Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

In the 5th century the papacy was unable to retain the Oriental Orthodox in the Church, because (it is said these days) of a linguistic misunderstanding. That does not speak well of Rome functioning properly as the centre of unity and universality.

2. 11th century. Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

In the 11th century the Pope lost the greater part of the Catholic Church. Catholics in the East outnumbered Catholics in the West in those days. The reason for this mass defection was the signal incompetency of the papacy to comprehend the Eastern Catholics. After the issuing of the Anathemas by Humbert -which were known by the Popes to be groundless accusations- the Popes did not attempt to right the situation and bring the Church back into unity.

3. 16th century. Protestant Reformation. Loss of much of Europe

The widespread corruption in the Catholic Church brought on the defection of millions of Catholics in the Protestant Reformation which carried entire countries out of the Catholic Church.

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history. It amounts to wishful thinking..

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity. Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2. 11th century. Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3. 16th century. Protestant Reformation. Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history. It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity. Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2. 11th century. Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3. 16th century. Protestant Reformation. Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history. It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity. Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

2. 11th century. Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

3. 16th century. Protestant Reformation. Loss of much of Europe

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history. It amounts to wishful thinking..

Come on, Father. This is a bit of a strawman. Every five centuries or so, there is disagreement in the Catholic church, therefore the Pope in invalid for unity?

A disaster!

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?

In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium, We have kept the faith intact without them. All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—itmust, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content ofthe Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?

In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium, We have kept the faith intact without them. All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—itmust, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content ofthe Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.

Fr Ambrose o..o~

Could someone explain what the Magisterium is within the Roman Catholic Church? i thought it merely referred to the teaching authority of the Church. We also understand that the Church has authority to teach and proclaim dogma, they just have a term for it ( as usual). Or is it an actual committee or something similar?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

One earth the supreme head of the Church in the earthly hierarchy is the Petrine Office instituted by Christ to operate in the service of the unity of the faith and the integrity of the Body here on earth.

Alas, the Pope has proved to be anything but an instrument of unity. Quite the opposite.

1. 5th century. Loss of the Oriental Orthodox

In the 5th century the papacy was unable to retain the Oriental Orthodox in the Church, because (it is said these days) of a linguistic misunderstanding. That does not speak well of Rome functioning properly as the centre of unity and universality.

2. 11th century. Loss of the Byzantine Orthodox.

In the 11th century the Pope lost the greater part of the Catholic Church. Catholics in the East outnumbered Catholics in the West in those days. The reason for this mass defection was the signal incompetency of the papacy to comprehend the Eastern Catholics. After the issuing of the Anathemas by Humbert -which were known by the Popes to be groundless accusations- the Popes did not attempt to right the situation and bring the Church back into unity.

3. 16th century. Protestant Reformation. Loss of much of Europe

The widespread corruption in the Catholic Church brought on the defection of millions of Catholics in the Protestant Reformation which carried entire countries out of the Catholic Church.

All in all, I would have to say that the idea that the Pope functions as a centre which facilitates unity is not borne out by history. It amounts to wishful thinking..

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?

In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium, We have kept the faith intact without them. All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—itmust, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content ofthe Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.

Fr Ambrose o..o~

Could someone explain what the Magisterium is within the Roman Catholic Church? i thought it merely referred to the teaching authority of the Church. We also understand that the Church has authority to teach and proclaim dogma, they just have a term for it ( as usual). Or is it an actual committee or something similar?

There is no Office of the Magisterium nor is there a Magisterial Committee. The closest one comes to a "place" where doctrine is clarified is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But note that it is NOT called the Matisterial Congregation and it does not have an army of doctrinal police, nor an army of inquisitors, nor an army of spies. There is no force or coercion in the exercise of the papal office and those to whom he delegates responsibility.

The Magisterium in the Catholic Church was, is and will remain the teaching authority. It has several manifestations with responsibilities attached. But the essential meaning of the word is direct reference to the teaching authority of the Church.

And there is no disagreements of the same sort in eastern orthodoxy? Would that the mean that the presence of the pope is moot to the argument?

In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium, We have kept the faith intact without them. All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—itmust, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content ofthe Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.

Fr Ambrose o..o~

Note that he did NOT say that this continuity is expressed equally faithfully by every single Orthodox patriarch, bishop, believer, priest, monk, etc.

Note that he does make certain assumptions when he writes that and those assumptions include the fact that the Catholic Church has done the same!!!...with even greater fullness in terms of union with the Petrine Office.

You may paint him as a dim-wit but he rarely misses details when he writes. And very often, he is kind enough not to rub anyone's nose in them.

All this situation with the Pope as a Primate of the whole Church takes place only within the Roman empire. It would be interesting to unearth any ancient Christian documents of Church fathers that were outside the empire that professed some sort of Petrine theology similar to some of the quotes we find of those within the empire. I wonder what Armenian, Arabian Peninsular, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Ethiopian ancient Christian fathers would have said about Rome, or St. Peter's role.

« Last Edit: September 06, 2010, 03:28:23 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith. The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome. They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.

This is indeed how Fr.John McGutchin describes the proceedings in his book "St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological controversy".

There is of course the Tome of Leo which made the Council Fathers so happy, but when the you read the Acts of the Council they first studied it to ensure it was orthodox before they proclaimed it as truly representing the orthodox faith. The Fathers did not accept it because it came from Rome. They accepted it because *they* made the decision that it was a correct expression of the faith... and at the same time they gave equal praise to Cyril who also taught as the Pope of Rome did.

That is not how the bishops treated the Tome of Leo at all.

The Acts say otherwise.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth